I am a parent judge with experience in PF, LD debate judging. I appreciate clearly identified and well-supported contentions, road mapping, speaking at an understandable pace, and respectful crossfire. I do not appreciate spreading. I like to flow while I'm judging a round. I prefer traditional debate to approaches like counter plans or progressive frameworks.

This is my third year judging LD debate and my first time judging virtually. My professional background is as a trial and appellate litigator, and I have substantial experience judging college and law school mock trial and moot court competitions.

In LD debate, I am looking for clear and well-reasoned presentations that persuasively connect contentions to your framework.

Please avoid spreading.

I am not a fan of off-time road maps and prefer brief sign posts as you argue.

Civil discourse is expected.

I work in the investment sphere, and had a legal career in global finance prior to transitioning to the business side. I taught International Negotiations at George Washington National Law Center, to a mixed class of law, business and government students. In my work I spend a lot of time on strategy and persuasion in relation to making investments, which always have many sides: founders, management, investors, buyers, sellers and clients/customers, as well as regulators sometimes. I have one year of experience judging PF debate at local tournaments, live and on Zoom.

PF Debate: I vote for the advocates who formulate a robust, convincing framework for their arguments, who prepare well and know a wide range of aspects related to the topic, and who speak clearly. Arguments should be logical, based on a comprehensive paradigm, well supported by evidence, and responsive to the opponent’s arguments. I tend not to favor debate gimmicks, rapid-fire speaking, or snarky approaches. I tend to give some weight to showing respect to the opponent where principled. I am not looking for a team looking just to "win", but one that will sway me and an audience, as ultimately the purpose of the debate is to influence a broader society. Civility and professionalism are important.

Paradigm

“A thought well conceived will be enunciated clearly, and the words to say it will thence flow easily” (Nicolas Boileau, 1636-1711)

In other words, things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever you want me to comprehend and vote on needs to be clearly articulated.

I will flow the round and will vote per the flow. It is in my view your responsibility to make yourself understood. It is your responsibility to explain your argument in an intelligible way.

You are at liberty to set the criteria by which you will be judged. Please do so and then explain why and how you think you won according to these criteria and why your opponent lost and why their criteria did not produce a winning outcome for them.

The goal of any debater should be to persuade the judge, that they conveyed their argument in a way that was more logical than their opponent, and that they effectively poked holes in the opponents logic.

I’m truly equally open to everything. I judge on the capacity to present and defend ones argument. The debate room is in my view totally disconnected from the world since anything argued here will have absolutely no implication and since debaters were imposed the side of the case to defend.

Please feel free to ask any questions before the round!

Contact:

Email Cayman1@gmail.com if you have questions. If the questions are about a specific flow, please mention the round/flight/tournament.  Please don't try to reach me via any social media you find me on; I'm not likely to check them in a time-sensitive situation at a tournament.

Online Judging:

Unless tournament rules say otherwise or both teams are sending actual speech docs over SpeechDrop, everyone needs to be on the Email chain. I'll still read evidence sparingly unless asked to, but it's important that everyone is on the chain to verify what evidence gets sent when (and that it was sent to all participants instead of accidentally choosing 'reply' vs 'reply all'.) Because these rules and norms are relatively new and still in flux, I'm inclined by default to drop the card and not the team if one side can't fully/correctly comply with an evidence request.

I probably won't be looking at Campus/Cloud/Zoom very much during speeches. My ballot/comments, timer, flow, and any relevant evidence are already competing for screen space.

Since automated flips are time-sensitive and inflexible, if you have any questions for me that may influence how you flip, I'll try to get into the virtual competition room early with time to spare. If you're in the room and don't see me there, Email me. Normally, I try to avoid answering questions about specific hypotheticals where one team can hear me and the other can't, but I'll make an exception under this ruleset if one team needs to know before their coin flip timer expires and then I'll make an effort to fill the other team in as similarly as I can before the round starts. Also before the round starts, I'll verbally confirm who won the flip and which choice each side made, in case it becomes relevant to mid-round arguments.

However fast y'all think you can go without sacrificing clarity is modified by both your microphone and your opponents' speakers. I'll let you know if you're unclear to me; if your opponents are unclear to you, either clarify in cross or err on the side of asking for more evidence from the last speech.

If you're waiting for a card to start prep, please don't mute yourselves until prep starts. Prep starts when the requested cards (if any) arrive in the Email chain (or when debaters are obviously prepping) and stops when someone from the prepping team un-mutes and says to stop prep. If your opponents gave you the wrong card, I'll reset prep to where it was when you started, but if you just want to ask for more cards, please do so all at once rather than constantly trying to pause and un-pause prep.

Should you feel compelled to run a theory argument, please make sure that the interpretation and standards take the current online format into account.

If y'all want to ask your opponents clarifying questions during your own prep time, you're welcome to do so, but it's up to them whether to answer.

Cross can get especially messy when feedback and dueling microphones are involved. Please be mindful of the technical issues that talking over each other can cause and interrupt sparingly.

Background:

• Policy and LD since 1998
• Parli and PF since 2002
• WSDC and WUDC since 2009
• Big Questions since it became a non-meme event*
• Coach for Howard County, MD teams (Atholton, Centennial, Marriotts Ridge, Mt Hebron, Oakland Mills, River Hill, etc.) 2007-2020
• Capitol Debate camps & travel team from 2008-2013
• James Logan Forensics Institute from 2012-2013
• SNFI Public Forum 2010-2019
• Bethesda Chevy Chase 2019-2022

J-V, NCFLs, NJFL, Round Robins, etc.:

• If I'm judging you in a format where you don't get prefs or strikes and judge assignments are random, it's more my job to adapt to you than your job to adapt to me. Issues with stylistic choices or execution are more likely to find their way into the ballot comments than into the speaker points.
• Do what you do best; don't second-guess yourselves and do what you think I want to hear if it's not what you're good at.
• Don't take your norms for granted. If you and your opponent have different ideas of what debate should be or how it should be evaluated, tell me why the way that you do it is superior, the same way you would with any other argument.
• If you have a panel, do what you have to do to win the panel. If the easiest way to win is to pick up the two lay parent-judges sitting on either side of me and doodling on their ballots while trying to look attentive, so be it. I won't hold panel adaptation against teams. Making me feel engaged and useful is not why you're here.
• Some leagues ban disclosure. Some leagues ban verbal feedback. Those rules are bad for education and bad for debate. If you have questions about your round, find me after the round and we'll talk about what happened.

Evidence:

• I don't like calling for cards. If I do, it's either because of a factual/ethical dispute between teams about what the author actually says, because the round had a total absence of weighing outside of the quoted impact cards, or for educational reasons that aren't going to affect my RFD. How teams spin the cards matters, as does how well teams seem to know their cards.
• I assume ignorance over malfeasance. If you think the other team is being unethical, be able to prove it. Otherwise, correct/educate them by going after the evidence or citation instead of the people.
• Smart analytics beat un-smart cards every time.
• If you haven't read the article or chapter or study that your evidence is quoting, you probably shouldn't be using that evidence yet. When I'm evaluating impacts, it does you no favors to add a second sub-level of probability where I have to wonder "But do they know that the evidence actually says that? If so, did they make X argument on purpose?"
• Saying the word "Extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. Repetition is not argumentation.
• If you're using digital evidence, it's your responsibility to be able to show the other team. It is not your opponents' responsibility to own laptops or to bring you a flash drive. I'm fine with teams using Email to share evidence - with the notable caveat that if I catch you using internet access to do anything outside tournament rules, your coach and the tab room are both going to hear about it. "Can I Email this so I don't risk getting viruses on my USB?" is a reasonable question most of the time. "Can I get on Messenger so my assistant coaches can type up theory extensions for me?" is NOT an acceptable interpretation of that question.
• Prep stops when you stop working with the evidence: either when the flash drive leaves the computer or when you send the Email and stop typing or when you stand up with the evidence in hand.

Speed:

• I care more about clarity than speed. If I can't understand you, I'll let you know.
• If you can't understand your opponents, let them know in CX/CF/Prep. Deliberately maintaining an incomprehensible speed to stop your opponents from refuting arguments they can't comprehend is probably not a winning strategy especially in Parli and PF, where speech documents and wikis don't check.
• Quality > quantity. "Spreading" isn't some arbitrary brightline of WPM; it's when you're talking faster than you can think. Doesn't matter which event. Don't get discouraged just because your opponents are faster than you.

Event-specific stuff:

• CX:
• Check the judge philosophies Wiki.
• If your strategy relies on preffing only judges like me and then telling other teams they can't read their arguments in front of the judges that you've preffed, then please rethink your strategy.
• I've coached and run a wide variety of arguments. One of the easiest ways to lose my ballot is to be dogmatic and assume that because I've coached it, I like it, or that I think it's intrinsically true. If you have guessed an argument that I actually enjoy running and/or believe in, that still doesn't mean you'll be held to a lower standard on it.
• With the (hopefully obvious) exception of status theory, I'd prefer to be able to reject the argument instead of the team. You probably want to hedge your bets by telling me how the round changes if the argument is(n't) rejected.
• Kick your own arguments; don't leave it up to me to decide what should or shouldn't be kicked unless you're actually ok with either option.
• L-D:
• The majority of L-D I've judged in recent years has been fairly traditional/local; it's probably the event I judge least at bid tournaments on the national circuit, so it's probably best to treat me as a recovering policy judge.
• I try not to intervene on theory. If you're winning it, I'll vote for it, even if doing so makes me feel dirty, as long as it's warranted/impacted/developed like any other winnable argument. That said, my theory norms have been largely calibrated by the arguments' CX analogues., so if you think there's something L-D specific I should be aware of (no 2NC's role in disclosure, the absence of a second CX when determining whether answers are binding/whether clarifications are sufficient, the difference between neg block and NR in creating side bias, etc.) be explicit about it.
• In-round discourse probably comes before theory, T/FW probably come before other theory.
• I'm not convinced there's such a thing as a "pre-standard" argument. An argument might operate on a higher level of standards than anything else currently in the round, or on a mutually conceded standard, but it still needs to be fully developed.
• PF:
• I strongly prefer for the second-speaking team to adapt their definitions/burdens in their initial speech and frontline in 2RB to create clash. I won't auto-drop you for using the 2RB the same as you would have the 1RB, but you're not doing your partner's 2SM any favors.
• Deliberate concessions early in the round can get you a long way. Just know and explain where and why they're strategic.
• Cite authors when possible. The university your author went to / was published by / taught at / is not your author. The way to get around a dearth of source diversity is to find more sources, not to find as many different ways as possible to cite the same source.
• Teams that start weighing in RB typically have an easier time getting my ballot than teams that just spit out a bunch of constructive arguments and wait for reductive speeches to weigh anything.
• CF should be focused on asking actual questions, not repeating speeches or fitting in arguments you didn't have time for. "Do you agree", "Isn't it true that", "How would you respond to", and "Are you aware" are rarely ingredients of genuine questions. Good CFs will clarify and focus the round by finding where common ground exists and where clash matters.  If you think something in CF matters, mention it in your team's next speech.  If you or your partner have no intention of referencing something in your next speech, 
• SM cannot go line-by-line in most rounds. There's literally not enough time. There are more and less technical ways of looking at the big picture, but you do need to look at the big picture.  My standards for SM coverage (especially 2SM) have increased since the speech length increased 50%, so spending the extra time on comparing warrants and weighing is probably better than re-ligitating the rebuttal
• GCF is a hard place to win the round but an easy place to lose the round. Make sure that you and your partner are presenting a unified front; make sure that you're investing time in places that deserve it, make sure that if you're trying to introduce something new-ish here that you tie it into what's already happened this round.
• FF shouldn't be a notable departure from SM. Offense matters, especially if you're speaking first.
• Parliamentary:
• Naming arguments is not the same as making arguments. I can't easily vote on something that you haven't demonstrated intellectual ownership of.
• My threshold for beating arguments is inversely proportional to the silliness of the argument.
• "but [authority figure] says X" is not an argument. Especially in an event where you can't directly quote said person. I don't want to know whether Paul Krugman says the economy is recovering. I don't want to know whether Nietzsche says suffering is valuable. I want to know why they are right. Your warrants are your own responsibility.
• Intelligently asking and taking POIs is a big factor in speaker points.
• Most rounds come down to how well the PMR answers the Opp block. If the Opp block was much better done than the MG, there might be no PMR that could answer well enough, but that's rare. Parli seems to have much more potential for teams that are behind to come back than most other events.
• I'm generally tech > truth. In Parli, however, depending on how common knowledge the topic is and whether internet prep is allowed, a little more truth can beat a lot more tech. Don't be afraid to stake the round on a question of fact if you're sure it's actually a question of fact.
• I should not have to say this, but given the current state of HS Parli, if I am confident a team is lying and I already intend to drop them for it, I may double-check the relevant fact online just to make 100% sure. This is not me "accessing the internet on behalf of" the team I'm voting for; this is me going the extra mile for the team that I was already intending to vote against anyway. Suggesting that the losing team should be given a win because I gave them a second chance before I signed my ballot is asinine.
• If you have a collection of 2 or 3 Ks that you read against every opponent, I don't think that aligns with the intention of the format, but I can certainly be convinced that fidelity to that intent is overrated. That said, you should make an extra effort to engage with your opponents and show how your criticism creates clash rather than sidesteps clash.
• Limited-Prep
• Extemp - Source diversity matters. I will look ev up online if it sounds sketchy. I do care that you give a direct answer to the actual question you drew, but not every question is written in a way that deserves a definite yes or no answer: if you don't, your speech should still contain elements of nuance and advocacy beyond "...well, yes and no" and should show me why all the simple answers would have been wrong.
• Impromptu - I don't have a strong preference for one structure over another, but some prompts lend themselves more to certain structures. Not everything needs to be forced into a 3x1 or a 2x2 if it doesn't fit the procrustean bill. Recycled anecdotes and tropes are somewhat inevitable, but canned speeches defeat the purpose of the event.
• Interp/Platforms/Congress
• How did you end up with me as a judge? I'm so sorry. You're probably sorry too. Someone probably desperately needed a judge to stop the tournament from running grossly overtime, and all the other potential volunteers either ran faster or hid better than I did. We'll both make it through this somehow. It'll be a learning experience.

Updated for virtual debate in 2021-22.

Add me to the email chain: azgphoto@hotmail.com.

If providing / exchanging speech docs: Please email the text of your speech to me. I prefer this to a link to your doc in the cloud. If you also want to send a link, that is fine.

Time: Speeches and cross: Please state something like "my time starts now" or "time starts on my first word." Prep time: Say "starting prep now," "time starts when I get my partner's call," or hold your timer so that everyone can see it when you start prep. Also say "stopping prep, we used X" or "x remaining." This helps me and everyone in the round keep track.

Virtual evidence exchange: Teams must be able to pull up evidence and provide it promptly. Teams asking for evidence must keep both microphones on until the evidence is received in order to keep your prep time from starting. Any team asked for evidence that cannot provide it within 1 minute may lose prep time.

----

Experience: I am a former Bronx High School of Science policy debater where I debated all four years and competed regularly at national tournaments. This was a while back. Abraham Lincoln was the President. (Obviously joking.) This is my fifth year judging PF debate for what is now my son's former high school. See my judging record below.

Please read my full paradigm below.

Signposting. Please signpost all of your positions/arguments. This includes your warrants, impacts, links, as well as when you weigh the issues in each speech. Numbering with signposting is often helpful for me to make clear what you consider to be independent arguments. Without good signposting, I (like any judge) may miss part of an argument or not vote on what you believe is key to the round.

Speed is okay but you must be clear. I flow debates. If I can't understand you or feel like I am missing what you are saying, you will be able to tell by the look on my face in the round. Online debate adds another level of difficulty to this so if I can't understand enough of what you are saying, I will say "clear."

Warrant your arguments and weigh them (where it makes sense to do so). I do not want to do any analysis for you that you do not present in the round. Intelligent and thoughtful analysis can beat warrantless evidence.

Evidence. Know your sources and tell me precisely what your evidence says. The NSDA allows paraphrasing but I don't think it is worth the potential trouble that can result. Context is often very important. If a team is paraphrasing and the evidence is critical to the round, I encourage you to call for it and look for weaknesses in your opponents's characterizations. Also, consider the persuasiveness of the author. I won't necessarily know who the author of your evidence is. Consider telling me enough so that I can evaluate how persuasive the evidence is as well as explaining why your opponent's sources may be biased or untrustworthy. I may ask for evidence that becomes important in the round. All evidence must say what you claim that it does. If paraphrased text doesn’t say what you claim that it said, I will weigh that against you. I don't like to call for cards but if you think that someone's evidence doesn't say what is claimed in the round, ask me to call for it. (Don't tell me to call for evidence that is not at issue in the round and don't bother to ask me if I want to see evidence after the round. I will tell you if I want to see something.)

Cross: I may make notes during cross but if you want to make an argument or respond to one, it must be made during a speech in the round. You can refer back to an argument made in cross but make sure I understand how you are using it in the round.

Frameworks: If your opponent seeks to establish a voting framework for the entire round, address that framework directly. Tell me why I should reject it or why I should adopt an alternate framework. If you do not respond to your opponents framework directly, I will treat that as though you have accepted it.

By the end of your summary speeches, I should have a clear idea of exactly what you want me to vote on and why. (“We win the round on x is nowhere near as helpful as “We win the round on x because ...” Please address your opponents’ voting arguments head on.

Extend your key arguments into Final Focus. Extending an argument is not the same as repeating an argument. Know the difference. If you want me to vote on it, it must be there.

On a related note, don't drop your opponents’ voting arguments. If an argument is truly dropped and this is pointed out in the final focus, I will give the dropped argument to the team that made the argument. They may not win as a result but it could be easier to do so. DO NOT, however, claim that your opponents dropped one of your arguments when, in fact, they merely responded generally to it.

Timing. When time runs out, please stop speaking. If time runs and you are in mid sentence, you may complete the sentence but only if you can do so in no more than a few seconds. Arguments made or responses given after time is up are NOT "in the round."

I will disclose my decision after a round along with my RFD if the rules of a tournament allow me to do so.

Progressive arguments: I am not very familiar with progressive arguments / Ks, so run them at your own risk. That being said, I will evaluate any argument presented on the merits of the argument.

I am a relatively new parent judge. I have judged a few times at the local level. Please speak slowly and clearly, identify your main arguments at the beginning (roadmap), and make clear transitions between arguments.

I did PF for four years, now I’m a coach for Walt Whitman and a college debater.

If you’re comfortable, please put your pronouns in your tab account.

I'm a pretty standard tech judge, however I care infinitely more about good logical warranting than cards.

I can deal with any speed, but if you're going fast please signpost clearly.

I don't require all defense to be extended in first summary, however if it's frontlined you should respond if you want to extend it.

If you have any questions about my feedback or decision, feel free to ask. Be respectful tho.

hi (:

remi (she/ her) I'm a sophomore at gw studying IA and environmental studies. I did pf in hs but consider me flay

also tell me your pronouns and names before the round starts!

EXTEND your warrants and impacts (quantified preferably) plz -- if you want it voted on, it has to be said in summary AND final focus

basic jargon is fine (DL, turn, extend, time frame) but don't go crazy

I don't write down card names, stats or warrants yes but not names sources or years so if you mention a card name and don't explain it ill be confused

I don't evaluate cross fire, if something happens, tell me in a speech

time yourselves

read content warnings

if you wanna wear sweats or a hoodie that's fine, come in a hat for all I care!

I dont know how to evaluate theory and K's but if you wanna try you can lol

dont be rude and have fun!

I'm a high school public forum debate coach.

Do not speed through your information, if I can't understand you, I can't give your credit for your points.

I flow the debates.

Note on Crossfire- If you ask a question, give your opponents time to answer it.

I am your typical "lay" judge. I take the "Public Forum" concept literally, meaning your target audience is a member of the general public with a certain amount of knowledge and bias on the topic. I will try my best to consider only the evidence/arguments presented in the round. I believe truth matters, I vote mainly on the amount of knowledge you show on the topic and how convincing your arguments are.

Speaking:

- Speak clearly and slowly

- Be courteous to everyone in the round

- Humor and jokes will be rewarded

- Avoid too much debate lingo

Content:

- Signpost

- Weigh and weigh clearly, tell me why your argument is better

- A card can say whatever it says, but I don’t care unless you can logically warrant it

- If you have a problem with a piece of evidence, say it in one of your speeches.

- If you want to refer to something you said earlier, don’t just use the card name, explain the evidence again

- You are welcome to run non-conventional arguments, I will try my best to keep an open mind. However I am biased against them, see the first paragraph.

- Misc

Keep track of your own time, and your opponent's if you can.

My 2 most important preferences:

1. Please, please slow down. I suggest 1 to 1.5x conversational speed; I think ideal case length is 680-700 words. If you could imagine someone asking for a speech doc, SLOW down! Implications for you:

-- If your speed means I miss something important, it’s like it never existed. I’m not gonna be like, “Hmm, maybe I heard something kinda like that” when you extend it. It’s goodbye

-- If your opponent cannot understand and asks you to slow down (do this by loudly saying “clear”), you must do so. Within reason; I will intervene in obvious cases of abuse

-- This preference is also reflected in speaks. Selective vision >>> brute force coverage. Extreme speed = low speaks

2. I place a strong emphasis on warranting. Implications:

-- If you and your opponent disagree on something, I prioritize your comparisons in this order: 1. Warrant comparison 2. Warranted evidence comparison 3. Evidence comparison that is just: “dates”

-- If an arg is not warranted and your opponent mentions this, I won’t let you bring in new warranting. Don’t go for something that wasn’t warranted in case and expect me to vote off it. Only exception is commonly intuitive statements

Notes on the flow

--Theory/K's/progressive args: I consider them a barrier to entry in PF and probably won't vote on them. 99% odds I won’t buy theory about dates, speaks, disclosure, paraphrasing, etc. If you do it in combination with extreme speed, consider it an auto-drop. If it's something you're genuinely concerned about, you impact it convincingly, and you make it accessible, you can give it a try. I seriously and strongly recommend against it, but you can

--I’m not super picky about extensions (e.g. if you extend a paraphrased version of your impact in summary and one specific impact card in FF, that’s fine). But ofc any argument in FF should be in summary

--1st FF can extend defense from rebuttal if it isn’t frontlined in 2nd rebuttal. But I’d still recommend extending a couple of your favorite responses in summary

--2nd rebuttal doesn’t need to frontline their voters, though it must frontline major turns/ offensive overviews

--2nd rebuttal shouldn’t go overboard with disads; > 1 minute on them is too much. If a ton of your speech is disads and it feels abusive I may drop you. Even if I don’t, the speaks will suffer and I’ll allow blippier responses in 1st summary

--if there’s no offense in the round that I can see, I default first speaking team. (I realize this is unusual, I personally think it's fairer)

Please be kind to each other. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me at beginning of round. Good luck!

Please speak slowly so I can clearly understand you. Please focus on / reemphasize your main points and rebut other side’s main arguments instead of flooding me with information about everything. Depth than breadth. Sometimes less is more :)